[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Kenton A. Hoover via cctalk]

I believe the term was coined at PARC and was to distinguish between a 
time-sharing system and a computer which was “yours” when you put your disk 
pack on it and sat in the room where you were. Thus the Alto and Dorados were 
personal as they melded to their user, when being used by that user, and then 
to the next user when the new pack was installed.  Time-sharing systems were 
pretty much not customizable and were certainly shared.

..

--
Kenton A. Hoover
ken...@nemersonhoover.org
shib...@mail.marchordie.org
+1 415 830 5843
On Jun 5, 2024 at 06:50 -0700, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk 
, wrote:
>
>
> On 6/5/2024 9:33 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03 AM Will Cooke via cctalk 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 06/05/2024 7:17 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means
> > > > ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only
> > > > personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe.
> > > >
> > >
> > > To my mind, there are two things that define a computer as a personal
> > > computer. The first is what you say above, affordable by the masses. The
> > > second is "intended for" the masses.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > So if a computer was built to be used by a single operator for general
> > purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the
> > masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine
> > was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing,
> > it's not a "personal computer"?
>
> I think the term "personal computer" is impossible to define. Its
> meaning will mean something different to just about anybody. Kinda
> like "intelligence". Some accept IQ as a measurement. Some accept
> membership in Mensa as a measure of very high IQ. I, on the other
> hand, I see membership in Mensa a a factor requiring the subtraction
> of at least 50 points from IQ because they were stupid enough to pay
> someone for it. :-)
>
> bill

[cctalk] Re: the mouse vs. touch sensitive devices

[Kenton A. Hoover via cctalk]

I don't think that portrayal of Xerox's view on the mouse is correct. Much of 
Interlisp and all of Smalltalk was mouse-based and Interlisp was never designed 
for (only) use by youth.

Trackpads are fine except for detail work. Touchscreens are bound by touch 
targets needing to be finger-sized. The trackpoint works well if you never want 
to take your hands off the keyboard at all. The mouse/trackball just sit in the 
middle of the graph of connivence/precision.

..

--
Kenton A. Hoover
ken...@nemersonhoover.org
shib...@mail.marchordie.org
+1 415 830 5843
On Jan 22, 2023, 05:14 -0800, Chris via cctalk , wrote:
> Originally as I understand it the mouse as a product of Xerox was intended 
> not so much for general use but to aid youngins and disabled people with 
> their usage. And despite the never-mousers, predominantly linux fanatics, 
> it's an indispensable tool for nearly everyone. There was a stint where I 
> favored trackballs. But it's a toss up as to which is more natural and 
> faster. Each may excel in cwrtain applications.
>
> Then there's the touch screen (and touch pad). I find touch pads superior, 
> make that way superior to that horrific track point used on old Thinkpads. 
> But again that'a me. Touch screens, my hatred for them grows almost daily. 
> They have their place. And for portable devices they're largely the only game 
> in town. But I often wish I at least had the option of a mouse or something 
> close.
>
> Is this an example of where older tech beats the new tech? Or do aspects of 
> the newer tech just await refinement?